Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 24, 2012 10:30pm-11:00pm PDT

10:30 pm
10 million .6 this year from last year. the efficiency proposals, we added in the mandatory cost increases and due to chief still's advocacy for the city in sacramento, we were awarded 8.54 million for realignment this year. i do have some slides here about realignment. i'm not sure if you want to see those now. supervisor chu: why don't we just go highly -- high level over them. >> i'm sorry? supervisor chu: why don't we just go over the highlights. >> i can tell that you a.b. 109 went into effect october 2007. -- 2011. cdcr provided pronlses of prisoners leaving custody to go
10:31 pm
to local facilities and part of our f.y. 2011 bunt was based on realignment projections. the results have actually lead -- gone over the projections. we used to get paid for our state parole and we don't anymore. we have this last month 249. so i guess what i wanted to say by telling you all that is just that it's not quite what we expected to be and i'm sure the chief will have more to say about that in terms of probation. supervisor chu: thank you. i'm wondering if you might be able to speak a little bit about staffing levels overall in the department. i know we spent a lot of time with some of the other departments on staffing and i notice with your bunt, primarily jail six is going to remain closed at the time and
10:32 pm
i'm just wondering in terms of changes to your overtime or changes to your operational budget as it relates to this partial culture? >> when jail six closed in april of 2010, there were 40 people that were resigned throughout the department. and even though we had lot a number of people before that, those people kind of offset the overtime for the year. as attrition increased, we ended up spending more overtime based on the fact that we had lost 75 people. we accounted for the 40 when we lost jail six. we accounted for the other 27 that were taken because we hadn't taken a class since 2009, but it still gives us a deficit of a few. but in addition to that right now we have 48 people off on long-term leave. that has not just occurred all
10:33 pm
at once but over time. and so our overtime was on it way up. in the meantime, what i've asked for in this budget is a few positions for the p.u.c. and p.u.c. is going to pay for those positions. for positions to guard the new building, and in addition to that we're being allowed to hire because of the redu,s i made in some -- reductions i made in some of the promotive positions. so right now our department has 1,010 in this budget. that's 863 sworn positions and 147 nonsworn. is that what you were asking, supervisor? supervisor chu: but just with regards to the budget analyst recommendations, where are you with that? >> well, as far as i know the
10:34 pm
budget analyst's recommendations are to take away basically 130,000 from my department at this point and i've worked with amanda of the office and there were other recommendations that we actually were able to discuss and agree upon and so i can live with this recommendation. at this time. supervisor chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: thank you. and thank you for that. i appreciate that. i actually had another question on your professional services budget. it could be that i didn't have a good understanding of when i read it. but i know that in physical year 2010 that you allocated 7.8 million but it looked like you only spent 2.6 million of that and i know that this past fiscal year there was 10 million more than what you had spent as well, within your line item of professional services
10:35 pm
so i was hoping you could address that because you still continue to have that amount in your budget and i was curious to why there seemed to be that discrepancy. >> i'm not sure. i think it may be the food contract and it could be the electronic monitoring. those are the two that because of the count was low -- lower we would have saved money. but we actually just renegotiated the food contract for the coming year and i think we made that adjustment. supervisor kim: you know your line item more accurately reflects what you will actually spend? >> are you talking about 021? that's professional services. i think also the debt services for the sam gruleder jail are included in that as well now. supervisor kim: i'm not sure exactly what that is. there's a line item under professional services and i'm
10:36 pm
looking at that in the bunt. in 2010 fiscal year it was 7 .8. looked like what you spent was 2.6. the following year you had allocated 12.2. so an increase over the 7 .8 and you spent this year 4.3 but still didn't spend down the professional bunt services. >> i'm going to have to research that and get back with you. supervisor kim: that will be great, thank you. >> i'll be happy to do that. >> are you looking at -- in the mayor's budget book the information about professional and contract you recall services perhaps? supervisor kim: yes, i had written it out. >> i think what you're seeing
10:37 pm
there is what she referenced, which is the difference in 2011 of no-debt service for the jail in their budget and then 1112 that service being bunted. it's really that the budget increased in the second year due to the debt service expenditures. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> thank you. supervisor chu: mr. rose? >> madam chair and members of the committee, as i understand it the chair concurs with our recommended redid you gos for 1213 of 120,000. we have no repses for 1314. can you supervisor chu: with regards to overtime, i see in terms of the department's -- the spread sheet. if you look at the book it doesn't really break out
10:38 pm
salaries in fringe to overtime versus straight time. it looks like here you're proposing $6.3 million in overtime? >> this year, yes. supervisor chu: in this coming year as well as the second year. i'm just trying to understand whether we think there are any ways to control that overtime. why do we still need overtime if we have one jail that's closed down? >> one of the reasons we need overtime is because our relief factors are not accurate. and a few weeks ago i started staffing analysis based on the national institute of corrections and we're understaffed according to that but also our network hours are pretty low. what that means is we really don't have enough staff to cover when somebody's off for some reason. during non-productive work
10:39 pm
hours, we don't have enough people to cover. so that's the main reason. and i would say one of the things we're trying to do is make those adjustments and we've also started a wellness program within our own department on our own trying to figure out how to get people back to work that are on disabilities and provide some safety training for people on certain areas of disability. i have a whole city on that as well but i didn't want to put the whole study in this presentation. supervisor chu: programs we can follow up with that information. >> supervisor, the sheriff worked closely at our office to look at their historical use of overtime, so the number they're bunted for in the current year is the average of the last three years of overtime use so we feel that it is quite reflective of the need in the
10:40 pm
department. c.j. 6, also known as the little jail, was also closed over the last several years and so it does account for that closure. supervisor chu: great. thank you. so colleagues. can we entertain a motion to accept the budget analyst's recommendation? we'll do and -- that and without objection. thank you very much. final department, the adult probation department? chief, i understand your presentation is very lengthy. i would request that we don't go through your entire presentation. i've heard it's very, very long. >> we will attempt to minimize that. how's that? i think i actually have about 11 slides and i'll go through them as quickly as i can.
10:41 pm
>> thank you very much. wendy sill, probation officer. thank you for inviolating me here today to speak on your budget. i would like to thank the budget officer, the budget director, kate howard, melissa howard, our analyst. ben rosen fed, the controller and his staff and mr. harvey rose and his staff. amanda gumea. probation is changing significantly. realignment and probation, evidence-based probation has really changed our world. adult probation is a cost-effective solution to today's criminal justice issues. we basically, for all of our
10:42 pm
last year cost, our costs per offender was $5.12, as opposed to the are parole decision -- division's supervision is $19. jail incarceration currently is $100 a day for a bed and community corrections and community supervision is very important to be successful because if we are we can have substantial savings in the sheriff's bed costs as well as other parts of the criminal justice system. with that said, we were able to reduce the number of probation-related individuals in the jails by 50% and this resulted in a savings of 350 beds, which equates to over $17 million. and so where we see the jail's population is down substantially, it's not by chance we are actively out there turning supplemental reports into the court quickly. we are also providing
10:43 pm
alternatives using remedial sanctions and also using such things as flash incarceration. all of these things designed to have a more effective intervention, hold the offender accountable but not take up the costly jail beds. our current probation population is 6,028 and this is down. roughly 81% or felony and 19% are misdemeanors. 84% are male, 15% or 16% are females and the majority of the crismse are either drug offenses or related. 10% narcotics sales. 38% property crimes, 23%, the majority of those crimes basically are related to the truck addictive behavior crimes against person, 22%. i might note that violent crime is down in san francisco by 11%
10:44 pm
at a time when all this criminal justice population is being realigned to san francisco. so i feel that staff are doing an excellent job and i really want to compliment my staff. our risk level of the san francisco drug probationers. high is 7%. medium, 15%, low 18% and this is significantly higher than in the average county. that's because we have so many alternatives that we pursue in san francisco. we have collaborative courts, the c.j.y., a -- c.j.c. a variety of drug treatments that are available. the population that we are supervising related to regular probationers is higher than the regular probationer in other counties. probation trends in 2011. we were able to successfully decrease our overall probation
10:45 pm
population by 9% from 6,800 roughly down to 6,200. 22% of all probations were terminated. basically they were completed either successfully or unsuccessfully. out of those terminations, 7 % were successful. that 78% success rate as compared to the state's failure rate is 7 %. so we have diametrically opposite the relationship and 22% of our terminations were unsuccessful, so we're very proud of the fact over 3 faurts -- 3/4 of our probationers are successfully terminating. the successful terminations that impact positively reduce jail beds. also, what the court has done, which is really impacting our population realignment is that they are really relying upon
10:46 pm
mandatory supervision more so than jail beds. part of the projection that the state had was that at this i given time related to alternative sentencing that there would be 221 jail beds associated with that. that is not the case. there are significantly fewer. the beds that the sheriff is spearsing use of the related to paroles, again, failure and their parole violators. we have successfully taken that mandatory supervision. the judges are basically sentencing over 50% of the cases to mandatory supervision, which probation supervises out in the community rather than a jail bed in comparison to los angeles, basically their judges are only using 5% of mandatory supervision as compared to 50% for ours. and that's because the judges have faith and we are being successful. to talk about basically our
10:47 pm
supervision cases, we have currently in terms of the prcf population. the release of the prisoners, that are being released from the state coming to us for supervision rather than state parole supervision, as of today we have 300 cases. the state projected that we would have 456. we will far exceed that. we are right now 11% above what they projected. the 11 supervision cases, we're projecting 263, at least five times what the state would have projected us to have. our highest risk cases, we're proposing two additional positions out of the three proposed in the bunt to handle those highest risks that are cycling through the jail system that are out there violating creating additional victims and basically they need to be closely supervise. our ratio, as they are for this
10:48 pm
high-risk population, 90% of the population that the state has sent for local prison-jail incarceration and also for the post release supervision, 90% of them are high risk. aapa recommended standards are 20-1. my staff is supervising this population at a 50-1 ratio. so we're already supervising well over two times that and what i'm asking for in the budget to be paid for by state funds is two additional positions for those highest risk cases. in 2013 i project that our combined realigned population will be 719. and it will grow to 823 by 3014 and 1878 by 14-15. and we want these projections to come true. in they don't, what that means is our jail population are --
10:49 pm
will grow and that's when these interventions become so critical and especially the interventions such as the treatment services that we have available. just to talk about our overtime before we jump into the budget. happy to report it has taken a lot of effort, but we have zero overtime budgeted and we have zero overtime expended. this is when we're absorbing the highest massive historic shift of criminal justice in our history. staff have worked hard. staff are working higher case loads but we've been able to do it. fortunately we have 22 individuals that we're getting ready to hire, which will help us reduce the case loads and make the workload much more manageable. in terms of our job creation programs, we have a mentoring program, which we will employ june absolutely august through the mayor's jobs program.
10:50 pm
and we employee five interns on a continuous basis and we also give them an opportunity to become probation aides for those that are the most skilled and some of them are now testing for our probation officer so we're recruiting them into the probation officers so it's our succession planning program. language access. 9% of our clients are limited english proficient. 87% of these are spanish speaking. 15% of our public contact staff are certified bilingual. 38% of the new hires will be byling intellectual. -- bilingual. cantonese and also spanish speaking. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: how long has your plan been around? >> since i have, two years. we also issued a bilingual
10:51 pm
policy, which means a are staff are paid for, their bilingual skills. we also have our main lines recorded messageses with business information, and our bilingual recordings and department forms are bilingual. if i go too fast, please tell me. i'm trying to get through it for you. in terms of our overall bunt, getting a picture of what it looked like in 2010-11. our budget was about $12 million, 12.7. the final annual allotment was 21 million and that was related to the realigned resources that primarily came into us as well as some grant funding. we've been very successful in getting grant funding. s.b. 678 gave each county the opportunity to reduce the violators to state prison and they granted each county money
10:52 pm
for a certain amount for every individual that we reduced beyond our average. we've been very successful. 48% reduction of those violators by wrapping around services and having successful intervention. as a result we've received over $2.1 million in grants and we're taking that money and 100% of the being reinvested back into services. in 2012-13, our proposed budget, it shifts also. its recognizes that our realignment population is growing and so the funds associated with realignment are growing. the state was going do give us $10 million and i went to the state and lobbied because of the fact that the funding perform -- formula penalized san francisco. and the law resulting in the formula being changed, an
10:53 pm
increase from 10 million to $17 million. 6 % of our budget are related to labor, primarily the staff are performing the supervisor roles of the probation officers or the remainder of them are administrative-time staff, which is roughly -- probably there's 80% that are sworn staff with a little less than 20% non-sworn staff. we have a nonlabor cost. about 17%, 16% services from other departments. we work order a tremendous amount of service dollars to public health for mental health, substance abuse and other services related to the probasers and the realign population as well as money for housing services. a third of the realignment dollars that came into the city, we have been reallocated
10:54 pm
for services. if we're going to be successful in the intervention it's going to be because of the fact that we have services available for the population. in terms of the overall budget changes from the last fiscal year, the net increase is $4.1 million. the state funding is 4.17. sb 678 funding, an additional $528,000 above the 800 and some thousand that we received last year. we had two grants expire. we also have new additional grants coming in. we have just been selected, training for all of our sworn staff for the evidence based practices.
10:55 pm
san francisco probation was selected as one because of our national reputation. we're pretty proud of that. we have been able to reduce the general funds contribution to our budget by over a million dollars. in addition to that, we were able to take the services being provided for our probation population and are realigned population and public health was able to reduce their budget by almost a million dollars. i believe it was $995,000. as a result of us being able to provide our dollars. not only have reduced our general fund budget, we have reduced all of the general fund budget of public health. in terms of the overall extent of the money, the increased realignment dollars, that is for our highest risk cases. what new supervisor to supervise those staff that will be -- what new supervisors to supervise the
10:56 pm
staff that will be out in the field. one new administrative analyst. we have so much money going out to contracts, we are proposing one new administrative analyst. temporary salaries that will allow us to grow education and victim service components, which we have note staff for to be able to do. realignment has changed our world in terms of policies across the gamut. the temporary salaries are very critical for us to do the work that is going to take us two years. other non labor enhancement is case management expanding our compass. so that we can be able to address our case management. we have additional treatment services and housing, drug
10:57 pm
testing. supervisor chu: we can take a quick look at it. for the treatment services, is that a work order to dph? >> some of that money also goes to housing. what we have done, for those departments that provide a service, we allow them to utilize their expertise and bring the services to us. supervisor chu: we are not having your department creates a whole new program. we are using existing program resources? >> services that do not exist anywhere. the overarching in terms of the partnerships we have the committee assessment and service center. that is our primary focus. we are contacting with a local
10:58 pm
provider and we also partner with service providers, and asian neighborhoods designs comet job training, emergency stabilization, mental health services, substance abuse case management, hamilton, that is a grant that we have received from the federal government that is over $1.1 million. a learning center to bring education services to our client. we have also focused on training staff and motivational interviewing. that alone has the highest rate of recidivism reduction by 20% if staff interview and work with their clients. we have participated -- we are providing good judges information and the presentence investigation of pork. that is why the judges have more in -- more information.
10:59 pm
the implementation of the individual treatment and rehabilitation plan, we have been doing that since the june. the county jail reentry, bringing their inmates back earlier so we can do affected pre release planning so that when they are released, they have a plan. they can be more successful. the community corrections partnership executive committee, which i chair. they have approved the funding as proposed in the mayor's budget. the plan will be officially coming to the board. i think it is important to note in light of what i am going to talk about in terms of the recommendations. the pilot project, evidence based training, we are moving to a computer-based training. we are thrilled we were one of 44 applicants to be selected. ok, moving nine. supervisor chu: